I see some overheated media reports blaming Google for failing to deliver its promise: "...to reinvent mobile hardware with Motorola's new phones, and directly compete with Apple by owning both mobile hardware and software."

Just as much as I want to keep manufacturing jobs in America, I don't fault Google for this decision. The new Google-Lenovo deal shows a significant recognition by Google that the company has little to gain by hanging on to the smartphone hardware business.

Added values are in peripherals Now, contrast this decision against Google's $3.2 billion purchase of Nest.

Nest's Learning Thermostat and Protect smoke and carbon monoxide alarm are both designed to connect to one receiver: the Nest app on a smartphone.

The value here isn't the smartphone itself, but in peripherals -- the software and hardware that run Nest. The smartphone, a mere messenger for these functions, is fast becoming a commodity.

To be sure, I'm not forecasting the eclipse of the smartphone. Smartphones will still be ubiquitous for years to come, their value intact. But the smartphone's key function will be a modem, attached to a myriad of connected devices and technologies.

In short, the world is about to flip.

Gone is the conventional wisdom of cramming more and more bells and whistles into smartphones so that smartphones can morph into something else. Emerging is a new world where the existence of smartphones is a given. Added value, where new competition will unfold, is not in smartphones themselves, but in "peripherals" (some call it the Internet of Things) that will leverage the smartphone's connectivity.

Now, let's add these two events (dumping Motorola and buying Nest) to last Sunday's patent truce between Google and Samsung.

That move will "short circuit" the drawn-out legal wrangling we see today, as Francis Sideco, senior director of consumer electronics and communications technologies at IHS, told EE Times. The "eventual reality" perceived by both companies is that nobody wins hands down in any litigation. While winning some individual cases and losing some, the net loss for both sides is in time and energy, and in the vast sums squandered on lawyers, Sidesco explained.

But more to the point, the significance of the Google/Samsung cross-licensing agreement, as Ron Epstein, principal at Epicenter IP Group, put it earlier this week, is this: "The [smartphone] platform battle -- initiated by patent wars -- is coming to an end."

Clearly, both Google and Samsung are seeing the value of doing business together by trading patents.

The flip side of this détente, though, is the maturing of the smartphone business. If we were still in the early days of smartphone innovation, this wouldn't have happened.

The end of an era The end of an era for smartphones is a difficult prospect to face. After all, the smartphone market has been the engine of the electronics industry in the last several years. And yet, think about this: For a few years, other than the screen size of a handset, the industry hasn't been able to significantly improve or differentiate the smartphones on the market today.

The state of the smartphone industry today bears a striking resemblance to the moment in 2005 when the novelty of notebook computers began wearing off and IBM sold its PC business to Lenovo.

The difference now is that the PC business then was predominantly owned by Taiwanese (and some Japanese) companies. The smartphone business for the next decade will be dominated by (mainland) Chinese OEMs including Lenovo, Huawei, ZTE, and many other names still unfamiliar in the United States yet.

As many of my engineer friends in China would tell me, Lenovo has a stellar reputation for technology, quality, talent and discipline. (In contrast, from what I gather about ZTE, not so much.) Lenovo is also ambitious. Last year, it even assembled a team of engineers to start developing its own application processors for smartphones -- in order to differentiate their products.

Nobody better take lightly what Lenovo can do.

In an environment that will be marked by a declined smartphone innovation, Apple's next move -- virtually the first major initiative in the post-Steve Jobs era -- will be huge.

I fully agree with Junko that the smartphone is no longer a prime product, it is becoming a commodity like the laptops became commodity back in 2005.

Google, Apple , Samsung, and the likes, are the companies who would always like to say at the cutting edge of the technology , develop new wave products and sale them at premium pricing , make huge profits and make their brands stronger

@jnashee, i see what you are saying. The three things that I mentioned may not be directly linked, but they are, nonetheless. important data points that speak of a trend -- the trend of maturing smartphone market.

However, one of the things that I probably didn't explain it well. I am NOT saying that smartphones will disappear. They will live for decades. But the very nature of smartphones will change. Rather than it serving as a platform to integrate a lot of things on, I am predicting its core value will be reduced to its modem. It's a commodity that everyone will use. And yet, the real value of the smartphone lives in other things -- peripherals -- people will use which will simply wirelessly connected to the smartphone that everyone has.

I don't think any wearable devices we know it today WILL replace the smartphone.

The smartphone will be there -- intact. But we will have a variety of devices (none of which will have as huge a volume as the smartphone does) that are designed to leverage the smartphone.

I wonder if Junko is simply being provocative on the form-factor issue. Google has always been a failure at directing hardware architectures, but the death of the smartphone? I'd say it has a far greater guaranteed lifetime than either the tablet or wearables, simply because its hand-size is handy! Tablets are awkward, wearables are for the most part dumb. I see the latter improving over time, but I think the tablet is a lot more questionable form factor than the smartphone.

That is my point that today they know how to make money from ads but they have been trying to bring in new revenue streams because any management would want multiple products out there to hedge their bets. But they don't have any other viable alternate product that brings in cash. They tried selling music. Didn't work. They are selling enterprise services but isn't exactly a rage.

Anyways, my original point was that the three activities that the writer tried to link aren't really related all that much so the conclusion that smartphones are going down the tube does not seem sustainable.

I personally think the wearables won't be close to replacing the phone market. The reason isthat mobiles got so popular was that they offered a solutions for basic needs: boredom and wanting to be distracted. And they are addictive. And they were without competition.

By those criteria most wearable are less appealing(maybe with exception to glass). And the numbers talk for themself - the market estimates are much lower than mobile market.

My guess about what will replace the smartphone market is virtual reality glasses(and the required strong pc's). Valve thinks they'll be perfect in 2 years , and perfect meaning giving you the experience of presence, just being there.Users who use their research system agree. Others described this experience as being inside a dream. And many content authors are very excited about it , so there be plenty of amazing content.